The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1887-05-12


4 forgery?
Answer.-No. There WAS q cuftail not
Of So, which Mr.. Whittle called my atten
ton to. and stated that I did not remem
Der TO have signed it. subsequently, afte
seeing Clinedinst 6 Bodell, remembers
that / had signed IT,
Question.-Did you not state to II. c
| Tiusley, last fall. that you suspected Cline
dinst 81 Bodell with dealing in bogus paper
and repeat the same after Clinedinst 6
BodeA absconded?
Answer. II toldIiin that after Chnedins
! & Bodell left.
Question. Didn't you state 30 Kidstol
| Carr and Mr., STAGE that you had gotten
into deep water with Clinedinst s. ljodell
ana that when it came to the jumping of
place You intended to get married al
make the property over to your wife
Answer,-No.
Question.-Didn' you hold note drawn
to Clinedinst & Bodel, and signed John A
FauyeF. which MI Fauyer denounced a.
a forgery; and didn't you subsequently tel
him thao you put the note in bank and il
was paid at maturity?
Answer Don't recollect.
Question. Didn't You examine a lot CT
notes belonging to z. II. Trout, in Lynn's
Office and in Lynn's presence, which yor
pronounced genuine, ard stated that you
knew the drawers. and which isnow known
to be bogus paper?
This question, It's well as the whole line
OF cross examination detailed above was
objected to by defendants counsel, on the
ground that it Was Irrelevant and inadmis-
sible The charge against the defendant
| WAS for obtaining money under fals5 pre-
| lenses, which was larceny. The defence
| had shown that there was no deception in
| this case, and This was the only case on
| trial. Murphy had accepted the note on
the faith OF McComb's enlargement. and
not npon any knowledge Of the response
bilty Of the drawer. McComb himself
had been deceived, and but repeated the
representations made to him in regard to
the.nOte.
Mr.. Braxton replied that he had per
feet right to lay the ground for impeacl-
meat. The witness has stated that he did
not know that Clinedinst & Bodell were
dealing in bogus paper, and the Common
wealth wanted to prove that he did know it.
Pending the Introduction of evidence in
rebuttal and at the instance Of the Com
monWealth, the case was continued for
further hearing until Tuesday evening.
TUESDAYS SESSION.
| The case was resumed at 'clocl Tues
| day evening, and AS on The day before a
| large crowd WAS in attendance. All Of the
counsel were present.
| Mr.. j. j. Murphy was again placed on
| Lhe stand. and in response TO questions by
| the Commonwealth IS Attorney, stated that
| if he had known or suspected that the note
| was forgery Oh bogus he would have re-
| fused to accept it or have anything to do
with it, notwithstanding McComb'5 En-
dorsement.
Inresponse to q question by Nh Cochran,
| witness stated that at the time OF the trans
action he believed McCombto be perfectly
| responsible and would have loaned him
| money on his own note.
Replying to Mr.. BraXton, he said: If
| had suspected that McComb did not know
this was a genuine note would not have
bought it. would not haye bought it had
| known or suspected there WAS ne such
person as M. S. Strain. In each case where
purchased notes OF McComb he assured
me that he knew the parties, as did also
Clinedinst 80 Bodell. When the note in
question matured, | called McComb'S at
tention TO the matter. and several times
urged him to pay it. He said he would do
so when he sold his wheat; and again, that
he would stir up Clinedinst 81 Bodell.
At the close Oh Murphy evidence. the
COmm0nWealth'S Attorney asked this ques-
ton OF the defendant
During last spring and the winter before,
did you not take for discount, three notes
to D. 3. Henton, drawn to the order of
Clinedinst & Bodell, endorsedby them, and
did not Mr.. Henton pronounce them bogus
Or forgeries, and say that he knew them to
be 5ach
The question was objected to by counsel
for defeRca. and his Honor ruled it out.
Mr.. BraXton asked to be heard before
final decision on the point, and the reque /
was granted. MI. BraXtoD, in substan S
said: The effect of the ruling, if adhered
to- is TO let McComb make any statement
he desires, and debar the Commonwealth
from dispEOving it. McComb stated that
when he got this paper from Clinedinst 81
B0dell he accepted their representation as
true. and had no cause to suspect that it
was not genuine, or that the firm was hand
ling bogus paper. Now. have witnesses
TO prove that prior to this transaction Nc
Comb not only suspected that Clinedinst &
BodeD were dealing in bogus paper, but
that he knel0 it. | can prove, in at least
three cases, that he held notes drawn to
the order Of this firm, which he knew, alb
soluteiy, were forgeries, or signed by ficti-
ti0us names. Is it possible that | shall
not be permitted to show this guilty knowl-
edge? Applause and considerable confu-
sion. The defense is based upon tue ground
that the representation made to Murphy
10y McComb was upon information recev-
ed from Clineiinst & Bodell. and which
McComb honestly believed to be true
that McComb had faith ana confidence in
the veracity and integrity of Clinedinst &
B0dell and received the note from them
without suSpecting that anything was
wrong, just DIS Murphy received it from
him.
Now, the witnesses are here to prove that
at that very time McComb knew that Cline
diDst & Bodell We're forgers and dealers in
bogus paper; that with this knowledge he
goes to men OF that character, receives
notes from them, and then palms them off
on Innocent parties and when brought to
account for his action, seeks to shelter
behind the plea that he was deceived by
the representa- oDs of the parties from
whom he obtained the notes. Murphy be-
lieVed McComb to be honest and truthful
McComb knetD Clinedinst Sc Bodell TO be
f0rgers and swindlers. And yet he comes
here and tells You that he had no cause to
suspect the truthfulness of Clinedinst 81
Bodell. and that his statements to Mu rpby
were honestly based upon the representa-
tions made to him and were not designed
to deceive.
Mr.. Craig replied with much animation.
I he case. and the only case beforeth court
said he, is that Of the Strain note. If the
Commonwealth can prove that McComb
knew this note to be 3 forgery. and repre-
sented it as genuine, and if Murphy was
induced, by reason of that representation,
to purchase it. then, ard only then, is Nc.
Comb amenable to tie charge preferred
against him. No such proof has been adj
duced. Ga the contrary, Murphy states
that he accepted the note on the faith of
McComb's endorsement, aud that he would
have taken it if there had been no other
name on it. Let the Commonwealth con-
fine itself TO the case When we undertook
to draw out the true inspiration of this
prosecution-Whe we wanted to show that
Wilkes, Trout and others were the moving
causes, the Attorney for the Common
wealth objected on the ground that those